Why the Next President Will Be a One-Termer

By: Teddy
Published On: 3/3/2008 12:23:29 PM

Whether the next POTUS is a Democrat or a Republican, I believe the odds are they will last only one term-- if that. What follows is an opinion piece explaining this conclusion:

IF REPUBLICAN

John McCain was probably promised the presidential nomination by the Republican Powers That Be, i.e., the political elite which is based on corporatist money and political philosophy.  That explains to a degree the curious fact that McCain, the in-house designated maverick, whenever the chips were down, always voted the party line and strongly supported Bush in even his more bizarre policies, including Iraq.  It also helps to explain why Mitt Romney "voluntarily" chose to remove himself from the race. It seems likely that Mitt's fadeout is related to a deal which promised him the Vice-Presidency---- and not just a shot at being the next candidate for President but an almost certain guarantee that he will succeed to the Presidency when McCain dies in office.  I say this not because McCain is over seventy, but because he is so palpably ill he already looks like death warmed over with his pasty complexion, the swollen left side of his face, and his history of cancer.  
For several years the shadowy political elite has clearly expected the 2008 presidential race would be McCain vs Hillary Clinton; they have tipped their hand on occasion in an effort to arrange just such a confrontation on the assumption that Clinton can be defeated by McCain (with the proper help and manipulation, of course), and this would lock the elite bosses into another generation of control over America's future.  McCain will probably not survive through even one term, enabling Republicans to insert their own "new face for change" almost at will.

IF DEMOCRATIC

Most observers agree that George W. Bush has so thoroughly screwed up the political, military, environmental, and economic sectors of America as well as of the entire world that all his disasters are coalescing into a perfect storm which will hit during the term of the next President.  The early warning flags are already fluttering in a stiffening breeze, despite strenuous efforts by the Federal Reserve, the Pentagon, and a host of foreign dignitaries and despots to tamp everything down.  Their efforts will be futile, and the next President, whether Republican or Democratic, whether male or female, black or white, will almost immediately face one Katrina-sized calamity after another--- everything from oil to economic recession, to melting ice caps, to bad weather and crop failures to dollar collapse to military confrontations and terrorists aided by a resurgent Russia, to Chinese competition for vital resources, to... well, you get the idea.  

Faced with this malevolent concantenation of circumstances, can you picture Republicans patriotically coalescing behind a Democratic President to work on these problems?  Me neither; it is more likely that from that famous Day One the Republicans and their media minions will begin a high decibel guerrilla attack on every utterance and every initiative of the new President.  Suddenly all of George Bush's disasters will become the fault of the Democrats now in office.  The cacophony will not cease until they either impeach or hound out of office the sitting Democrat, holding the Democrats to one term.

Is it possible that a charismatic President can grasp the nettle, ride over the obstructionist Republican malice, deal with multiple catastrophes, and simultaneously deliver on more than one campaign promise, thus restoring Americans' faith in their system---- all in time for the election of 2012?  It's a pretty tall order, isn't it?  Such a daunting prospect might well encourage the Democratic candidate who loses the primary to bide their time, and decide they will have a better prospect in the next election cycle, assuming there is one of course.  


Comments



I think this is some excellent analysis (Sui Juris - 3/3/2008 12:29:36 PM)
and it underlies my hope that Obama (whom I expect to win on Tuesday and November) learns to take and give hard hard punches.


Reagan or Carter (phillip123 - 3/3/2008 12:39:24 PM)
Rising gas prices, fears of inflation, conflicts in the middle east it seems like the late '70's all over again. If the new president is able to help our country it is likely that they will be able to win a second term and deliver the Presidency for their party again in 2016 just as Bush did for Reagan.  IF however the President is not able to confront the problems there is likely to be trouble.  As indept as democrats can be at times I think it will be a tough sell that they are to blame for all of Bushes problems.


Excellent analysis, Teddy (Hugo Estrada - 3/3/2008 12:55:26 PM)
I normally avoid point by point responses, but I will indulge this time :)

1. Thank you for pointing out the poor health of McCain. My wife and I talk about this. We constantly say that he is not the strong guy that he used to be, even just back in 2004. Not only does he look sick, but it seems that he has some sort of dementia since he doesn't sound as sharp as he did.

People like to dismiss this to McCain having a big mouth, but in the past, one could tell that he used his big mouth intentionally. Now it seems that he is clueless at what horrible things he is saying (bomb, bomb, Iran?)

2. Add Iraq as well. The plans for withdrawal of Clinton and Obama seem to leave a large military presence in Iraq. If a democratic president is elected, this is going to blow up in their faces once the economic pressures build up. Any sensible move by the administration will be vilified, as you correctly pointed out, by the Republicans.

3. Your post shows the importance of having to build a true popular movement to back whatever Democratic nominee is in the White House over the Republican attacks, and to force them to follow through with their campaign promises.

This really goes beyond what is good for the party. We are talking about serious damage to our country is we can't get out of Iraq and control the economy and curb poverty here.



"We cannot afford to let the Democrats win" (Teddy - 3/3/2008 12:58:21 PM)
is what McCain said aggressively (I may have paraphrased this slightly) in the video of his recent victory speech displayed here on RK. That is the video with Senator John Warner, Congressman Davis, Jeannemarie Devolites and other sagging Republican dignitaries on the platform behind McCain.  

The phrase rang a warning bell in my mind: the Republicans really meant it (Geoerge Bush himself echoed it later, and promised that Republicans would win in November to boot), and I believe they will do absolutely anything, anything to hold on to control of the executive branch.  They simply cannot afford to let the Democrats get their hands on some of the filthy secrets of the Bush Administration.  If they cannot manipulate and cheat enough to "win," then look for a lot of inexplicable lost or destroyed files, tapes, and e-mails prior to the Democratic take-over, followed by a firestorm of harrassment against the new POTUS almost immediately, to distract and divert attention in order to protect the Bush Administration and tie the hands of Democrats. IMHO.

While Mr. Obama came of age in rowdy Chicago politics, and if he has proven well able to handle himself there he can handle himself anywhere, this will be a whole order of viciousness higher, a world class vindictive malice on Greek tragedy level. I can only Hope.  



Secrets (KCinDC - 3/3/2008 6:17:31 PM)
I fully expect (1) a blanket pardon of everyone in the administration (known as "pulling a Fletcher" after the Kentucky governor's similar maneuver) by Bush in December 2008 or January 2009 and (2) wholesale destruction of documents, paper and electronic, throughout the government (after all, plenty of that has already happened).

Unfortunately I don't think the Republicans have much to fear when it comes to Democrats holding them accountable under a new president, even if the Democrats wanted to hold them accountable, which I'm not at all sure of.



Why would McCain pick Romney? (Jack Landers - 3/3/2008 1:08:23 PM)
What does Romney add to the ticket exactly?  His support among conservatives was always pretty soft. He has no real constituency at present. I don't seem his addition to the ticket unifying the party or anything. Maybe I'm wrong.

I mean, I see why Romney would want to be there. Just not why McCain would give it to him.



Good point, but (Teddy - 3/3/2008 1:25:49 PM)
Romney brings a strong connection with the corporatist elite and has provable competence in administering a fractious tending-liberal state; besides, his evident health and vigor would offset McCain's increasingly obvious poor health and erratic behavior.  The other prominent choice champing at the bit would be, God help us, that other evangelical former Governor of Arkansas still in the race.  Or, how about Ron Paul the libertarian? Or Condolezza Rice (in an effort to offset Obama's race and Hillary's gender, and continue Bush's great foreign policies)? Oh, man, it gets better and better...  


VP picks for McCain (Jack Landers - 3/3/2008 3:39:58 PM)
Condi would start looking like a good pick. There would be a boomlet. Then the Republican base would take a closer look at her supposedly liberal leanings on social issues and she'd become a drag on the ticket. A bit like Giulinani's story. She wouldn't help unite the GOP behind McCain.

Mike Huckabee would be a decent choice for him in terms of uniting the party.  I think McCain would do well to get someone from outside of DC with no connections to any of the legions of Washington GOP scandals from the last few years. Probably a current or former governor in that sense.  

Haley Barbour?
Charlie Crist?
Bobby Jindal?



other names that keep popping up (Chris Guy - 3/3/2008 3:56:05 PM)
are MN Gov. Pawlenty, UT Gov. Huntsman, SC Sen. Lindsay Graham, fmr. OH Rep. Rob Portman.

Rumblings now that Pawlenty may not be "conservative enough" for some Republicans. Considering how nasty some on the right have been to McCain, I think the loyalty that a Pawlenty or a Graham have shown him over the years makes sense to me.

Portman seems to be a creation of the DC establishment. He's the Bush administration's horse in this race.

I think Barbour has ruled himself out.  



Crist is already being pushed (Teddy - 3/3/2008 3:58:47 PM)
to the fury of Romney's supporters, who thought Romney had an excellent chance in Florida until Crist moved to McCain's camp for unknown reasons, and tilted the Romney votes toward McCain---- or so the rumors say. Crist would make a good choice, so would Barbour, at least to an outside observer.


agree on McCain (Scripple - 3/3/2008 1:40:02 PM)
But I don't agree on the Democratic nominee.  I think the American people give leaders a break if they're coming in knowing that they face great problems.

Another poster pointed out Reagan after a recession and foreign policy strife during the late 1970s.

An even better example -- Mark Warner after Jim Gilmore in 2001.  That's what Democrats have to offer -- exceptional leadership.  And while we might not be able to fix all the problems, I think that if we're moving in the right direction most Americans will give Obama/Hillary a pass if things aren't perfect yet.



The storm warnings are already fluttering . . . . (Quizzical - 3/3/2008 2:01:19 PM)
My hope is that the next President and the next Congress will have the political courage to do what needs to be done for the good of the nation, and to not govern with one eye always on being positioned for reelection.  



This is an incredibly offensive diary (Va Blogger2 - 3/3/2008 2:27:12 PM)
And shame on whoever promoted it. To suggest that someone with a history of cancer is "likely" to die through their first term as President is pretty damn repugnant.

And your "analysis" on how McCain won the nomination seems to ignore virtually all facts, and relies only on perceptions of smoke-filled rooms circa 2005, ignoring the entire nomination process.



McCain looks sick and tired (Hugo Estrada - 3/3/2008 4:13:44 PM)
Look at any recent video of McCain on youtube to verify that. McCain looks sick and tired. His gait is strange. He didn't look our sounded like this 4 years ago.

What is the problem then?



I disagree (Va Blogger2 - 3/3/2008 6:51:33 PM)
However, the problem is to say that his skin cancer from 2000 means he can't stand up to the rigors of the Presidency and "probably won't survive the first term". That's pretty damn offensive.

Didn't you guys ridicule Bill Frist when he diagnosed Terry Schiavo over video? And now you're telling me to look at McCain on YouTube?



McCain looks old, sick, and senile (lizquierda - 3/3/2008 7:52:46 PM)
a shadow of his former self. Even his voice seems older.

That is how he looks to me and to others.

P.S. Good try at changing the topic :)  



Go Back and Look At the Old Pictures (HisRoc - 3/3/2008 7:17:36 PM)
That swelling on McCain's face that everyone seems to make such a big deal about has been there since he came home from Vietnam in 1973.  It is from multiple beatings that he endured, esp. after the Vietnamese offered him a parole when they found out that he was the son of the CINCPAC and he refused.

As for looking sick and tired, I'd like to see what some of you guys would look like after working 80-hour weeks on the campaign trail, even at your present age and not in your 70's.

I think that this diary serverely underestimates John McCain and conveniently sweeps him under the rug.  Beware of drinking the Kool-aid, people.  



My prediction (Lowell - 3/3/2008 7:21:36 PM)
McCain lives until he's 90 years old.  Just look at his mother, going strong at 95.  He's got the genes. :)


Women usually out-survive men (relawson - 3/3/2008 7:40:09 PM)
The stress of being President - about as tough as it gets.  So if McCain does go it would probably be because of heart attack, stroke, or pre-existing conditions (cancer)

If he can survive those three hurdles, yeah maybe he does see 90.  The factors that actually help him are that the President is always walking, standing, etc.  Always using your mind.  So, he won't just wither away in a bed because he won't have time to sleep.

Obama on the other hand, he is young but one must wonder if he has the same fate as Kennedy.  I just see him rocking the boat and either the worst in society (racists) or the worst from government (corruption - maybe the defense industry) does him him.  Not that the boat doesn't need a good rocking, but there are powerful people who probably didn't become powerful by being law abiding citizens.



The Defense Industry Does Him In? (HisRoc - 3/3/2008 11:23:26 PM)
You conspiracy theorists seem to thrive on hidden bogeymen behind every tree.  Do you look under your bed before you get in it at night?

Do you have any idea how enormous a conspiracy it would require for executives of several Fortune 100 companies to plot the murder of the POTUS?  Get real.



So the defense industry is altruistic? (relawson - 3/3/2008 11:50:20 PM)
I think not.  It doesn't take a vast conspiracy to assasinate someone.  It takes someone with motive and the people who usually do this type of thing have lost their minds.  Assasinations are almost always very crude attacks.  

I doubt the mainstream defense industry would do something like this (corporations).  But, that doesn't mean that some of the nut jobs associated with that industry wouldn't.  Arms dealers aren't nice people.

I think the most plausible threat if Obama was president is a racist attempting an assasination.  Next on my list is the defense industry.  Frankly I am suprised that an attempt wasn't made on Bush given his unpopularity right now.

I just want to make it clear that I hope I am wrong on this.  I would never wish that any US president dies from illness or assasination.



Actually... (HisRoc - 3/4/2008 12:33:14 AM)
The last couple of executives that I worked for in the defense industry were nut jobs.  I just wouldn't give them the credit of being able to organize a farting contest, much less an assassination.

;-}

I do agree with you that a racist attempt on Obama is not beyond the pale.  There is a good reason why he is the only candidate, other than former FL Hillary, who has Secret Service protection.  Having lived thru the JFK, RFK, and MLK murders, comptemplating an assassination of Obama gives me chills.

Peace.



Offensive how? (Teddy - 3/3/2008 3:09:32 PM)
I understand why you may dislike talking about some one's health, especially after they have managed to become a cancer survivor, but reality is what it is, and this is the Presidency of the United States we are talking about.  I regret that I seem to have offended you, nevertheless Mr. McCain's health will be a factor, out in the open or subterranean, like it or not, and any careful observer cannot help but note some obvious signs in both Mr. McCain's physical condition and in his sometimes erratic behavior, as remarked upon right here in other comments.  


not to worried about the health issue (Alter of Freedom - 3/3/2008 8:48:10 PM)
We elect our President for four years and not eight though history has shown they tend to get re-elected for four more save Bush senior but that of course does not mean a President has to run and in fact I do not think McCain would run again should he win anyway. I think at this point with regard to age/health I might consider the plus that one is closing in on the winter of their life and see things much better, at least the things that ought to matter that is, and are not looking at some long term political dynasty or something down the line. Had voters known and factored in FDR's deteriorating health after each of his terms we may have just missed out on one of our greastest Presidents and legacies.
As to Romney, if there is a short list I never thought he would make it unless things really get nasty about the economy and he somehow gets elevated to business guru status with the insiders. I thought when he bailed out he would go the route of Sec of Labor or something, not VP. Regardless he will likely be a force come the next cycle regardless of whether its following a McCain term or an Obama/Clinton one.
Heck wouldn't be great for politics to have an incumbant President get challenged from inside his own ranks if he/she really turns out to be downer. Now that would create some fireworks.


With Medvedev in Russia (Teddy - 3/3/2008 4:50:28 PM)
and changing of the guard in other countries, it looks as though the next generation of world leaders is coming on stage. The generation gap between any one from any country who is 70+ and the new leaders in their 40's is much more than simply 30 years. I say this with a little cringe (I am over 70 myself). Sorry, but this is important.  

I would prefer that the discussion here not drift into this rather side issue to what I wanted to highlight in general: the next POTUS is going to have a helluva conundrum to deal with, Republican or Democrat. For Democrats there will be the added problem of a bitterly partisan opposition which operates with non-negotiable demands, intent on putting one of their own in the office (see how the Republican House of Delegates has dealt with Governor Kaine).  For Republicans, well, you better be very careful who is going to be Vice-President because you may have to live with him (or her) in a leadership position sooner than you think.  



70 is the new 60 ;-) (relawson - 3/3/2008 11:16:40 PM)
I agree, we may see a VP become President because the sitting President can no longer serve.  It's not that uncommon, historically speaking.


Glad I'm not alone (Vivian J. Paige - 3/3/2008 8:24:39 PM)
in thinking that the next POTUS will be a one-termer. You've hit on all the points that I have been thinking about and discussing with others.  


A Historical Reason (Brendan - 3/4/2008 1:16:41 AM)
Only once in American history has this country seen 3 consecutive 2 term presidents.  Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe.  

Add that to the fact that this country is a mess and the next president will be blamed for teh recession, foreign policy problems, and will have to raise taxes which will be used against him/her in the next election